Let's cut to the chase on Gibson's film.

[Rational BAC]

Long thread already on this. But let us get back to basics.

Does anyone think that the Jews are responsible for the crucifixion of Christ? Shouldn't we blame the Romans? Should we blame anyone at all?, --------since His death and resurrection were foreordained.--------destined to be and all that.

In other words, how can any depiction (no matter how gross) of the death of Christ be essentially anti-Semitic? Not to me anyway. I consider it more anti-Roman than anything. Didn't the Romans invent crucifixion? Didn't Pontius Pilate have the final say?

And wasn't Jesus Jewish?

And isn't it that what will probably bother most people in this movie will be the graphic portrayal of a Roman crucifixion?

I can be as anti-Roman as anybody else.

[Doctor X]

Since no historical evidence exists to solve the problem:

The police are having interviews for new recruits. After hours, the Chief gets impatient--and a bit silly--winking at his aid he asks one applicant:

"Tell me, who killed Jesus?"

The Italian applicant responds without hesitation, "the Jews!"

When with a Jewish applicant, the Chief decides to repeat his "joke." The Jew responds immediately, "the Romans!"

Finally, the Chief has a Polish applicant. He asks the same question. The applicant thinks . . . and thinks . . . and thinks.

The Chief raises his eyebrows at his aid and says, seriously, "Well, why don't you think about it and get back to us."

Later that night the Polish applicant's wife asks how his interview went.

"Great!" he replies, "I'm on my first murder case!"

I suppose scholars can think "what ifs" until the bovines return to their domiciles. The Synoptics and Jn preserve polemic and depictions based on them perpetuate the polemic.

--J. "Half Polish" D.

[Toto]

You can't make a logical case for blaming the Jews for Jesus' death. But that hasn't stopped countless European peasants from accusing their Jewish neighbors of Deicide and slaughtering them.

If you want a serious scholarly discussion, I can recommend Crossan's Who Killed Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060614803/internetinfidels) and Leidner's The Fabrication of the Christ Myth (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0967790107/internetinfidels). Both conclude that the gospel accounts of the Passion are so clearly literary works that it is impossible to separate out any real history.

[Primordial Groove]

With no background in theological studies I would say that the Jewish religious leaders were responsible for his death. Jesus managed to piss them off enough to get his arse crucified, didnt he?

[Grumpy]

If The Passion succeeds in its evangelical intent, viewers will be overjoyed, not infuriated, to see Jesus hoisted up on the cross. The question should be, who gets the credit for killing Jesus.

Apparently, the sight of Jesus soaking in blood has been an uplifting image for some early viewers of the film.

Frankly, I still don't understand the logic of "he sacrificed himself." He was arrested, allegedly through treachery, and accused of crimes, i.e. blasphemy, that he did in fact commit, though the Gospels don't consider that a crime. Because he could have resisted with "legions of angels," according to Matthew, but didn't, that's supposed to be a selfless act?

Putting that on film turns it into a mere plot hole, like the magical computer virus in Independence Day.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Primordial Groove
With no background in theological studies I would say that the Jewish religious leaders were responsible for his death. Jesus managed to piss them off enough to get his arse crucified, didnt he?

No.

That is the plot of the fictional tales known as the gospels. But it can't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

[Sarpedon]

I find the problem of who killed Jesus somewhat less interesting than the problem of who killed Mr Boddy.

[Jah191]

Everyone knows it was the butler with the candlestick in the kitchen.

[Marduk]

“With no background in theological studies I would say that the Jewish religious leaders were responsible for his death. Jesus managed to piss them off enough to get his arse crucified, didnt he?”

True, but the Jewish punishment for blasphemy was being stoned to death. Jerusalem was under Roman control & law, no one farted without the approval of Rome, he was convicted (if the story is historical anyway) of treason against Rome and killed by a Roman method by Roman agents.

[Doctor X]

My money is still on Miss Scarlet, in the kitchen, with a revolver. . . .

--J.D.

[Rick Sumner]

[QUOTE]In other words, how can any depiction (no matter how gross) of the death of Christ be essentially anti-Semitic? Not to me anyway. I consider it more anti-Roman than anything. Didn't the Romans invent crucifixion? Didn't Pontius Pilate have the final say?[QUOTE]

Pilate would have had the final say. Romans didn't invent crucifixion. I believe that was the Persians, but don't quote me on it. Herodotus certainly discusses it in Books I, II, and III of his History, in which he notes that Darius had some three-thousand Babylonians crucified.

Regards,
Rick

[Iasion]

Greetings,

here is a compilation of some early references to crucifixion :

http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Other-Cross.html

Iasion

[godfry n. glad]

No, no, no.... It's Colonel Mustard in the Library with a lead pipe.

[trillian]

I don't see why talking (or making a movie) about a historical "possibility" is sooo offensive to a jewish population today.

I mean, we can talk about who is responsible for the Inquisition, slavery, and the holocaust without Christians, southerners, and Germans getting all upset about it. People aren't responsible for the "sins of the father". Those people are dead long long ago and those actions do not apply to the people of today.


It may not have been the fault of the jews, but what does it really matter anyway?

Sad thing is, the neo-nazi punks will probably get some mileage out of a movie that places blame on the jews.

trillian

[Diabolical Vengeance]

I see a certain, slight, validity to the belief that jews are responsible, if you believe that jesus pissed off the jewish establishment (which he did) and they somehow conspired with the romans to crucify him then yes. however i see no logical reason for the romans to crucify a jewish heretic unless he was causing them problems, in which case what the problems jesus were causing to the romans are the impetuous for his execution, not some pissed off rahbbis. to the romans, the jews were just another people they had conquered and couldn't care less who was stirring up trouble so long as he wasn't causing them any grief. Another reason could be that he was betrated by judas who was jewish (like jesus) and therefore led him to this death. all this strikes me as bullocks however as jesus was imprisoned, judged and condemned b y romans, not jews.

and i should point out the only thing more hypocritically absurd than an antisemitc jew is an antisemitic christian. without judaism there wouldn't be christianity/catholicism (i'm not implying that wouldn't be a good thing :D)

[Vorkosigan]

From Iason's site

Inaros, the Libyan king, the sole author of the Egyptian revolt, was betrayed, taken, and crucified.

Possible historical parallel?

[Peter Kirby]

Maybe. How can we track down the full text? Always the first step in examining parallels.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Jack]

Who cares about Gibson's flm? The characters speak Aramaic and Latin with no subtitles. For the 15 people who pay to see the thing, it matters. For the rest of the world, it does not.

edited for spelling

Jack